Its not about the location, employer should always try maximize profit, if they can get the same service with lower expense, they should.
But, I am saying, that if you accept an offer that is based on what your employer thinks is an appropriate lifestyle for you, adjusted to the cost of living in your area, and not on the value of your work, that will immediately establish what I consider is a particularly inappropriate relationship between employer and employee. Of course this happens all the time for many reasons, but what we're seeing now is employers inventing and normalizing yet another, new tactic to deploy when trying to get you to accept less compensation. It's just another trick. But what's particularly insidious about this trick is that what they're doing is openly laying claim to your lifestyle by saying that: suppose you're a senior developer, you are entitled to organic groceries, whereas a junior developer is entitled to conventional produce, regardless of where you live, that's what you deserve. But that's wholly inappropriate: your compensation should depend on what you produce, and your lifestyle should be none of their business. If I want to move to Thailand or the middle of a field in Nebraska and save money, that's none of their business. There is no "objective" lifestyle that a senior developer should be entitled to. But that's this new trick they are trying to pull, and it's nothing short of disturbing and creepy.
The same way employee should use whatever 'tricks' at their disposal to get a higher pay.
For a buyer, that means a lower price. For the seller, that means a higher price.
Not a single other factor matters.
I keep repeating this on HN whenever a comp conversations come up. Unless lotsofpulp's comment resonates deeply with your bone marrow level intuition of what gets you paid, you're totally missing the point (and making bad choices.)
If we can remove location-based pay as a negotiation tactic, merely by creating social disapproval because its 'invasive', and the like then that's wonderful for us as as employees.
Why shouldn't we work together to hobble employers at the negotiation table? They have enough power as it is.
I have worked with two kinds of employees that are willing to accept lower pay.
- those moving for a better lifestyle who have earned and saved considerably more elsewhere. I call these “working retirees”.
- those who have family sending them money to subsidize their cost of living in an expensive city.